Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Mandal Revenue Officer vs U.Gangamma on 17 October, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
NJS, J & TRR, J
LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch
APHC010448992015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3526]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE
DAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos: 42, 49, 59, 62, 63, 64, 76, 467,
469, 475, 477 and 483 of 2014 & 12 and 13 of 2015
L.A.A.S.No.13 of 2015
Between:
1. THE MANDAL REV
REVENUE OFFICER, YEMMIGANUR,
KURNOOL DISTRICT
DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. U.SARASWATHI,, W/o.
W/o.SANGARNATH,
SANGARNATH, AGED 44 YEARS, HINDU,
YEMMIGANUR.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent:
1. Mr.VIVEKANANDA VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA 2 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch The Court made the following common judgment: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Aggrieved by the Common Order dated 16.08.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni in L.A.O.P.Nos.33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of 1988, the State as well as the claimants in the said O.Ps., filed the present batch of appeals.
2. In the said common order, the learned Senior Civil Judge, enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.14,100/- per acre to Rs.50,000/- per acre, as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre.
3. For the sake of convenience, L.A.A.S.No.13 of 2015 filed against the order in L.A.O.P.No.36 of 1988 is taken as lead case and the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the said O.P. Brief facts of the case:
For the purpose of providing house sites to economically backward classes of Kalugotla village, the State initiated land acquisition proceedings. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for acquisition of land of an extent of Ac.11.88 cents in Survey Nos.37/B3, 38/B and 108/C of Kalugotla Village belonging to the respondents / claimants was issued on 25.07.1985. 3
NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch
4. The Land Acquisition Officer after enquiry, fixed the market value of the subject matter lands @ Rs.14,100/- per acre. The respondents / claimants received the compensation amount under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act.
5. Before the Reference Court, the respondents / claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the Referring Officer, no oral evidence was adduced. Copy of the Award dated 15.05.1986 was marked as Ex.B1.
6. The learned Reference Court by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence through the impugned common order, fixed the market value @ Rs.50,000/- per acre as against Rs.4,00,000/- sought for by the claimants.
7. Heard Mr.Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader representing the State.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants / claimants made submissions to impress upon the Court that the order of the learned Reference Court to the extent of allowing the O.P., in part and not enhancing the compensation amount to Rs.4,00,000/- is unjust. He submits that in the light of the ample oral and documentary evidence supporting the case of the claimants, the learned Reference Court ought to have allowed the O.Ps., and granted the relief as prayed for instead of restricting the same to Rs.50,000/- per acre. Referring to Exs.A1 to A5 and laying much emphasis on Exs.A1 to A2, the 4 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch learned counsel submits that on the earlier occasion with regard to acquisition of land for the very same purpose of providing house sites, the lands in Yemmiganur Town nearby Kalugotla village were acquired vide Notification issued in the year 1985, like in the present case and the erstwhile Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, fixed the market value @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre vide Ex.A1. He submits that the learned Reference Court without assigning any reasons discarded Ex.A1. Further that the other Sale transactions which are within the vicinity of the subject matter lands were brought on record vide Exs.A3 to A5 and the learned Reference Court went wrong in only considering Ex.A5 though the market value as reflected in Exs.A3 and A4 is more. He also submits that the subject matter lands are highly potential, very close to Yemmiganur, a Grade-I Municipality and fixation of market value @ Rs.50,000/- per acre is very less and unreasonable.
9. The learned counsel further fairly submits that earlier the O.Ps., filed by the claimants were initially dismissed for non-prosecution and while setting aside the said orders vide C.R.P.Nos.5803 of 2011 and 112 of 2012 and batch, a learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 25.04.2013 directed the Reference Court not to award interest from the year 1994 till that date i.e., 25.04.2013. He submits that even though the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- determined by the learned Reference Court is very meagre, the State preferred appeals against the enhancement of market value from Rs.14,100/- per acre to Rs.50,000/- per acre without any 5 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch valid grounds. Therefore, he urges for allowing the appeals filed by the claimants while dismissing the appeals preferred by the State.
10. Mr.T.S.Rayalu, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals, on the other hand, made submissions assailing the common impugned order. He submits that Ex.A1 is in respect of the lands situated in an altogether different area and Town and the learned Reference Court had rightly not taken the same into consideration. He further submits that insofar as Exs.A3 to A5 are concerned, they are in respect of small extents of land situated in Kalugotla Village and having noted the same, the learned Reference Court ought not to have taken the same into consideration, more particularly Ex.A5 and confirmed the market value of Rs.14,100/- per acre as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the relevant sale transactions three years prior to the date of Section 4 (1) Notification. He also submits that the learned Reference Court erred in not deducting the development charges as required under Law. In this regard, he places reliance on the decision of this Court in L.A.A.S.No.547 of 2012 dated 21.03.2025. Making the said submissions and refuting the contentions for enhancement of compensation advanced on behalf of the claimants, the learned Government Pleader seeks to allow the appeals filed by the State and dismissal of the appeals preferred by the claimants.
6
NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch
11. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are:
1) Whether the claimants are entitled for more compensation than determined by the Reference Court and their appeals are to be allowed on that ground?
2) Whether the appeals of the State are liable to be allowed on the premise that the market value fixed at Rs.50,000/- is on higher side and as such the appeals preferred by the claimants are liable to be dismissed?
12. At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that there is no dispute with regard to the extents of lands which are subject matter of acquisition and the purpose of acquisition. It is also not in dispute that lands in and around Yemmiganur Town were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to economically Backward Sections in different spells by the State. The subject matter lands were acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) Notification dated 25.07.1985. The possession of the lands was taken on 15.05.1986. After conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.14,100/- per acre. Before the Reference Court, the respondents / claimants sought fixation of market value @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. However, in the present appeals, they restricted it to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The claimants in support of their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.
7
NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch
13. P.W.1, in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiterated his case as set out in the claim statement. P.W.2 deposed about the fixation of market value @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre in respect of the lands situated in Yemmiganur on the earlier occasion. The other witnesses P.Ws.3 to 5 deposed with regard to the sale transactions marked as Exs.A3 to A5.
14. On a perusal of Ex.A1 i.e., Copy of the Judgment in Appeal Suit No.1544 of 1986 dated 30.12.1988, it is discernible that the lands situated in Yemmiganur were acquired vide Section 4 (1) Notification dated 24.12.1983. The value fixed by the Hon'ble Division Bench cannot be applied to the subject matter lands, more particularly in view of the sale transactions that took place in respect of the lands in the very same Kalugotla village. However, Ex.A3-Sale Deed dated 02.12.1985 cannot be taken into consideration as it is a post 4 (1) Notification sale transaction. Out of the other two sale transactions, Ex.A5 dated 16.04.1985 is in respect of an extent of Ac.0.11 cents in Survey No.125 B/3 of Kalugotla Village which was purchased for Rs.5,500/- and Ex.A4-Sale Deed dated 22.08.1985, is in respect of an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Survey No.125 B/3 purchased for Rs.4,000/-. No doubt, it is true that the sale transactions are in respect of small extents, but they are house plots. It is also not in dispute that the purpose of acquisition of the subject matter lands is allotment of house sites. In such an event, there is nothing wrong in taking the said sale transactions into consideration, more particularly when no other materials / documents were filed by the Referring Officer, except the Award dated 15.05.1986.
8
NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch
15. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Poona 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia held that unless the sale transactions forming basis for fixation of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer are exhibited, the same cannot be treated as evidence though a reference was made in the Award. However, it may also pertinent to mention here that appropriate deductions towards development charges have to be effected, if sale exemplars of small extents of land are taken into account for determining the market value. In Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and others v State of Haryana & Others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, inter alia, held that the sale exemplars in respect of the small extents of land can be taken into consideration for fixation of Market Value and observed that appropriate deductions ranging from 20% which may even go upto 80% can be made.
16. Further, this Court is required to determine the just and reasonable compensation / market value on the basis of the documents exhibited by the claimants and it is for them to substantiate the plea for enhancement. This Court has already opined that Exs.A1 and A3 cannot be taken into account for determining the market value. Ex.A4 reflects higher market value than Ex.A5, therefore it is deemed appropriate to take the same as comparable sale for fixing the market value of the subject matter lands. As noted earlier, vide Ex.A4 dated 22.08.1985, five cents of land was purchased for Rs.4,000/-, 1 (1988) 3 SCC 751 2 MANU/SC/1134/2024 9 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch which works out to Rs.80,000/- per acre. The said sale transaction took place just one month prior to the issuance of Section 4 (1) Notification dated 25.07.1985. Therefore, no value appreciation is added. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, as the subject matter land was acquired for house sites, deduction towards development charges have to be made. The subject matter lands are situated in the village and therefore, deductions towards development charges @ 10% would be reasonable and the decision relied on by the learned Government Pleader is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, by taking Ex.A4 into consideration and the deductions @ 10%, the value of the subject matter lands is fixed at Rs.72,000/- per acre. Thus, the points are answered in favour of the claimants and against the State.
17. In the result, the appeals filed by the claimants i.e., L.A.A.S.Nos.42, 49, 59, 62, 63, 64 and 76 of 2014 are allowed in part enhancing the market value from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.72,000/- per acre. They are also entitled to the statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation. However, it is made clear that by virtue of the orders dated 25.04.2013 in C.R.P.Nos.5803 of 2011 and 112 of 2012, they are not entitled for interest from the year 1994 till 25.04.2013.
10
NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch
18. In the light of the conclusions arrived at by this Court in favour of the claimants, the appeals preferred by the State i.e., L.A.A.S.Nos.467, 469, 475, 477 and 483 of 2014 & 12 and 13 of 2015 are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Dt. 17.10.2025 BLV 11 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos: 42, 49, 59, 62, 63, 64, 76, 467, 469, 475, 477 and 483 of 2014 & 12 and 13 of 2015 (Per Ninala Jayasurya, J) Date: 17.10.2025 BLV 1 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch APHC010448992015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3526] (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE DAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos: 42, 49, 59, 62, 63, 64, 76, 467, 469, 475, 477 and 483 of 2014 & 12 and 13 of 2015 L.A.A.S.No.13 of 2015 Between:
1. THE MANDAL REV REVENUE OFFICER, YEMMIGANUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT AND
1. U.SARASWATHI,, W/o.
W/o.SANGARNATH, SANGARNATH, AGED 44 YEARS, HINDU, YEMMIGANUR.
...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:
1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent:
1. Mr.VIVEKANANDA VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA 2 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch The Court made the following common judgment: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Aggrieved by the Common Order dated 16.08.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni in L.A.O.P.Nos.33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of 1988, the State as well as the claimants in the said O.Ps., filed the present batch of appeals.
2. In the said common order, the learned Senior Civil Judge, enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.14,100/- per acre to Rs.50,000/- per acre, as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre.
3. For the sake of convenience, L.A.A.S.No.13 of 2015 filed against the order in L.A.O.P.No.36 of 1988 is taken as lead case and the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the said O.P. Brief facts of the case:
For the purpose of providing house sites to economically backward classes of Kalugotla village, the State initiated land acquisition proceedings. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for acquisition of land of an extent of Ac.11.88 cents in Survey Nos.37/B3, 38/B and 108/C of Kalugotla Village belonging to the respondents / claimants was issued on 25.07.1985. 3
NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch
4. The Land Acquisition Officer after enquiry, fixed the market value of the subject matter lands @ Rs.14,100/- per acre. The respondents / claimants received the compensation amount under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act.
5. Before the Reference Court, the respondents / claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the Referring Officer, no oral evidence was adduced. Copy of the Award dated 15.05.1986 was marked as Ex.B1.
6. The learned Reference Court by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence through the impugned common order, fixed the market value @ Rs.50,000/- per acre as against Rs.4,00,000/- sought for by the claimants.
7. Heard Mr.Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader representing the State.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants / claimants made submissions to impress upon the Court that the order of the learned Reference Court to the extent of allowing the O.P., in part and not enhancing the compensation amount to Rs.4,00,000/- is unjust. He submits that in the light of the ample oral and documentary evidence supporting the case of the claimants, the learned Reference Court ought to have allowed the O.Ps., and granted the relief as prayed for instead of restricting the same to Rs.50,000/- per acre. Referring to Exs.A1 to A5 and laying much emphasis on Exs.A1 to A2, the 4 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch learned counsel submits that on the earlier occasion with regard to acquisition of land for the very same purpose of providing house sites, the lands in Yemmiganur Town nearby Kalugotla village were acquired vide Notification issued in the year 1985, like in the present case and the erstwhile Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, fixed the market value @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre vide Ex.A1. He submits that the learned Reference Court without assigning any reasons discarded Ex.A1. Further that the other Sale transactions which are within the vicinity of the subject matter lands were brought on record vide Exs.A3 to A5 and the learned Reference Court went wrong in only considering Ex.A5 though the market value as reflected in Exs.A3 and A4 is more. He also submits that the subject matter lands are highly potential, very close to Yemmiganur, a Grade-I Municipality and fixation of market value @ Rs.50,000/- per acre is very less and unreasonable.
9. The learned counsel further fairly submits that earlier the O.Ps., filed by the claimants were initially dismissed for non-prosecution and while setting aside the said orders vide C.R.P.Nos.5803 of 2011 and 112 of 2012 and batch, a learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 25.04.2013 directed the Reference Court not to award interest from the year 1994 till that date i.e., 25.04.2013. He submits that even though the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- determined by the learned Reference Court is very meagre, the State preferred appeals against the enhancement of market value from Rs.14,100/- per acre to Rs.50,000/- per acre without any 5 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch valid grounds. Therefore, he urges for allowing the appeals filed by the claimants while dismissing the appeals preferred by the State.
10. Mr.T.S.Rayalu, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals, on the other hand, made submissions assailing the common impugned order. He submits that Ex.A1 is in respect of the lands situated in an altogether different area and Town and the learned Reference Court had rightly not taken the same into consideration. He further submits that insofar as Exs.A3 to A5 are concerned, they are in respect of small extents of land situated in Kalugotla Village and having noted the same, the learned Reference Court ought not to have taken the same into consideration, more particularly Ex.A5 and confirmed the market value of Rs.14,100/- per acre as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the relevant sale transactions three years prior to the date of Section 4 (1) Notification. He also submits that the learned Reference Court erred in not deducting the development charges as required under Law. In this regard, he places reliance on the decision of this Court in L.A.A.S.No.547 of 2012 dated 21.03.2025. Making the said submissions and refuting the contentions for enhancement of compensation advanced on behalf of the claimants, the learned Government Pleader seeks to allow the appeals filed by the State and dismissal of the appeals preferred by the claimants.
6
NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch
11. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are:
1) Whether the claimants are entitled for more compensation than determined by the Reference Court and their appeals are to be allowed on that ground?
2) Whether the appeals of the State are liable to be allowed on the premise that the market value fixed at Rs.50,000/- is on higher side and as such the appeals preferred by the claimants are liable to be dismissed?
12. At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that there is no dispute with regard to the extents of lands which are subject matter of acquisition and the purpose of acquisition. It is also not in dispute that lands in and around Yemmiganur Town were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to economically Backward Sections in different spells by the State. The subject matter lands were acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) Notification dated 25.07.1985. The possession of the lands was taken on 15.05.1986. After conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.14,100/- per acre. Before the Reference Court, the respondents / claimants sought fixation of market value @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. However, in the present appeals, they restricted it to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The claimants in support of their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.
7
NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch
13. P.W.1, in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiterated his case as set out in the claim statement. P.W.2 deposed about the fixation of market value @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre in respect of the lands situated in Yemmiganur on the earlier occasion. The other witnesses P.Ws.3 to 5 deposed with regard to the sale transactions marked as Exs.A3 to A5.
14. On a perusal of Ex.A1 i.e., Copy of the Judgment in Appeal Suit No.1544 of 1986 dated 30.12.1988, it is discernible that the lands situated in Yemmiganur were acquired vide Section 4 (1) Notification dated 24.12.1983. The value fixed by the Hon'ble Division Bench cannot be applied to the subject matter lands, more particularly in view of the sale transactions that took place in respect of the lands in the very same Kalugotla village. However, Ex.A3-Sale Deed dated 02.12.1985 cannot be taken into consideration as it is a post 4 (1) Notification sale transaction. Out of the other two sale transactions, Ex.A5 dated 16.04.1985 is in respect of an extent of Ac.0.11 cents in Survey No.125 B/3 of Kalugotla Village which was purchased for Rs.5,500/- and Ex.A4-Sale Deed dated 22.08.1985, is in respect of an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Survey No.125 B/3 purchased for Rs.4,000/-. No doubt, it is true that the sale transactions are in respect of small extents, but they are house plots. It is also not in dispute that the purpose of acquisition of the subject matter lands is allotment of house sites. In such an event, there is nothing wrong in taking the said sale transactions into consideration, more particularly when no other materials / documents were filed by the Referring Officer, except the Award dated 15.05.1986.
8
NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch
15. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Poona 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia held that unless the sale transactions forming basis for fixation of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer are exhibited, the same cannot be treated as evidence though a reference was made in the Award. However, it may also pertinent to mention here that appropriate deductions towards development charges have to be effected, if sale exemplars of small extents of land are taken into account for determining the market value. In Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and others v State of Haryana & Others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, inter alia, held that the sale exemplars in respect of the small extents of land can be taken into consideration for fixation of Market Value and observed that appropriate deductions ranging from 20% which may even go upto 80% can be made.
16. Further, this Court is required to determine the just and reasonable compensation / market value on the basis of the documents exhibited by the claimants and it is for them to substantiate the plea for enhancement. This Court has already opined that Exs.A1 and A3 cannot be taken into account for determining the market value. Ex.A4 reflects higher market value than Ex.A5, therefore it is deemed appropriate to take the same as comparable sale for fixing the market value of the subject matter lands. As noted earlier, vide Ex.A4 dated 22.08.1985, five cents of land was purchased for Rs.4,000/-, 1 (1988) 3 SCC 751 2 MANU/SC/1134/2024 9 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch which works out to Rs.80,000/- per acre. The said sale transaction took place just one month prior to the issuance of Section 4 (1) Notification dated 25.07.1985. Therefore, no value appreciation is added. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, as the subject matter land was acquired for house sites, deduction towards development charges have to be made. The subject matter lands are situated in the village and therefore, deductions towards development charges @ 10% would be reasonable and the decision relied on by the learned Government Pleader is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, by taking Ex.A4 into consideration and the deductions @ 10%, the value of the subject matter lands is fixed at Rs.72,000/- per acre. Thus, the points are answered in favour of the claimants and against the State.
17. In the result, the appeals filed by the claimants i.e., L.A.A.S.Nos.42, 49, 59, 62, 63, 64 and 76 of 2014 are allowed in part enhancing the market value from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.72,000/- per acre. They are also entitled to the statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation. However, it is made clear that by virtue of the orders dated 25.04.2013 in C.R.P.Nos.5803 of 2011 and 112 of 2012, they are not entitled for interest from the year 1994 till 25.04.2013.
10
NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch
18. In the light of the conclusions arrived at by this Court in favour of the claimants, the appeals preferred by the State i.e., L.A.A.S.Nos.467, 469, 475, 477 and 483 of 2014 & 12 and 13 of 2015 are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Dt. 17.10.2025 BLV 11 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_42 of 2014 & batch THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos: 42, 49, 59, 62, 63, 64, 76, 467, 469, 475, 477 and 483 of 2014 & 12 and 13 of 2015 (Per Ninala Jayasurya, J) Date: 17.10.2025 BLV